A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied on, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceeding.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in execution of part of a decree transmitted for Rs. 30 lacs for execution against the judgment-debtors Nos. 1 to 6. Execution is sought against the judgment debtor Nos. 1 to 6 that is to say M/s. Ramjidas Shriram, a partnership firm. Mr. Shrawan Kumar Agarwal in his individual capacity and as Karta of H. U. F. business of Shrawan Kumar Agarwal and Brothers, Mr. Onkarnath Agarwal in his individual capacity and as Karta of H. U. F. business of Onkarnath Agarwal and Brothers. Mr. Asok Kumar Agarwal son of Mr. Premnath, Smt. Sushila Wati. wife of Ramnath. Mr. Kedarnath Agarwal. son of late Balaprasad all of 46, Upper Chitpur Road, Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE execution is sought by attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties of the judgment-debtors Nos. 1 to 6. The mode in which the execution is sought is stated in Column 10 of the tabular statement filed herein.

( 3 ) THE said mode is the attachment and sale of the right, title and interest of judgment-debtors Nos. 1 to in 42, 43 and 46, Upper Chitpur Road now known as No. 216, 218 and 222. Rabindra Sarani. the right title and interest of the defendants Nos. 3 and 6 in properties No. 36, 37, 38. 40 Upper Chitpur Road now re-numbered as premises No. 212. Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta as also also 13a. Bagbazar Street. Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The judgment-creditor also wants to have Plots Nos. 1189, 1190, Bakultalta, Baltikuri. Howrah and superstructure built over there also to be sold. But the said property cannot be attached and sold in execution of the decree by this Court. The shares of the judgment-debtors in different Joint Stock Companies and partnership firms details of which are given is Schedule 2 are also sought to be attached and sold in execution. The said shares in Joint Stock Companies and partnership firms have been set out in Annexure 2 to the tabular statement. Besides the same, various bank accounts of the judgment-debtors have been mentioned and other movable properties and household goods belonging to the judgment-debtors have been set out in Annexure 3 to the tabular statement for being attached and sold in execution of the decree. The decree sought to be executed is dated 17th April, 1974 passed by the High Court at Delhi in Suit No. 472 of 1972.

( 4 ) THE following defence has been raised to the execution of the decree by Kedarnath Agarwal. the respondent No. 6. (1) The said Suit in Delhi could not be validly instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the same was not based on any negotiable instrument or hundi. (2) None of the said alleged hundies was duly stamped. (3) Although, the said Suit was purported to have been filed under Order 37, the same was really based on original consideration and thus no decree could have been passed. (4) None of the said hundies was payable to or assigned in favour of the plaintiff. (5) The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to Pass the said decree without any evidence. (6) No part of the cause of action as alleged in the plaint arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. (7) The defendants did not reside or carry on business within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. (8) The plaintiff has started execution proceedings of the said decree in the Delhi High Court being the Execution Case No. 39 of 1974. The said execution case is still pending at Delhi Court. (9) The plaintiff decree-holder is Purported to split up its decretal claim into two parts -- one for Rs. 15 lacs and another for Rs. 30 lacs and simultaneously executing the said decree partly in the High Court at Delhi and partly in this Hon'ble Court. (10) The two Plots of land Nos. 1189 and 1190 at Bakultalla. Baltikuri, Howrah are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The said two properties are situated within the jurisdiction of the District Court at Howrah. (11) In 1943, Kedarnath had been taken into adoption by his maternal